It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

Elandriel:What I want in a commander-in-chief is someone who ignores relevant current topics and viewpoints espoused by leaders of their party.

Kind of funny that only one party seems to be constantly stumblefarking their way into these situations where they say something horrifying and reprehensible. Must be the liberal MSM at work.

The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.

Spanky_McFarksalot:I doubt the people who get their news only from Fox would be in much danger of having their minds changed by this.

The truly repugnant thought is that with enough of these assholes espousing some variation on this viewpoint that it is legitimately acceptable to at least some fraction of republican voters and Americans in general. There are people who don't have problem with this and they're allowed to vote. As if I didn't hate this country enough before this election cycle.

Ba'boon:It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

Only someone who's never read the Bible would think something so ignorant. We're talking about a god that occasionally instructs parents to murder their children and when angered will send a plague killing thousands. No, god is far more likely to send the rapist than to stop him.

Ba'boon:It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

All this proves is that the LIEberal MSM media is lying by quoting the original statement, and the follow-up statement supporting the original, by this fine, upstanding, pillar of the community. FoxNews doesn't need to stoop so low as to report what the man actually said...twice. That would make them just as bad as the mud-slingers on the left.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If God is willing to give a gift, but not able to get a gift receipt? Then he is not a smart shopper.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is a douchebag.If he is both able and willing? Then where is my farking gift receipt?Is he neither able nor willing? They why let god do any of the birthday shopping?

Ba'boon:It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

Ba'boon:It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

Yeah, there's really two separate theological issues in play here: First, there is the issue of predestination, in this particular case meaning the question of whether or not people's lives are scripted. (The Bible argues both for and against at various times.) The second is one of divine intervention as it pertains to the Problem of Evil: If you believe that God sometimes intervenes in human affairs to prevent evil, then every time God doesn't, that's tantamount to tacit approval.

There's a part of me that's quite tickled to see these particular thorny theological issues getting aired out, since almost every solution to these problems has a downside, various Christian denominations tend to be in strong disagreement over these issues, and as a matter of practice they're usually swept under the rug as quickly as possible. (i.e. "Ultimately, it's a mystery, and we simply have to take God at his word that he's good and knows what he's doing...")

padraig:Ba'boon: It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

That doesn't really hold water. Evil can exist without evil acts being successfully carried out - for instance, attempted murder is still evil even if it fails spectacularly and the intended victim doesn't get a scratch. So, what's stopping this deity from preventing all evil plans (like rape) from coming to fruition?

the_geek:Elandriel: What I want in a commander-in-chief is someone who ignores relevant current topics and viewpoints espoused by leaders of their party.

Kind of funny that only one party seems to be constantly stumblefarking their way into these situations where they say something horrifying and reprehensible. Must be the liberal MSM at work.

The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.

Yeah, everyone is just dreaming up the fact that the fact that legislation restricting abortion is being passed (not just proposed but passed) at a record rate and that every other week we get a new candid opinion about rape by the same political party.

the_geek:The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.

Have you seen the scores of anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive legislation proposed in the last several years? This is precisely the result of Tea Party power, now with more obstructionist goodness.

This was supposed to be the GOP distraction issue to get all the low-information, religious, fly-over states votes. It was the political function of the abortion debate to pander to voters. The GOP never intended that a constitutional right would be continually under fire, beaten down and weathered away. It bit them in the ass, will lose them seats in Congress and they still don't even know how to distance themselves from it, because they won't grow a backbone and disavow this bullshiat.

This is a huge issue if you have a uterus, have a child with a uterus, have a wife with a uterus. It's an economic issue for families and the country alike and it's a matter of civil rights as well.

I'd call the danger of losing your right to have sex without fear of conception pretty farking relevant.

padraig:Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

But who created evil in the first place? If everything stems from God, then he's responsible for creating evil. If he didn't like evil, he could have simply made us without the mental capacity to do evil acts.

KwameKilstrawberry:This was supposed to be the GOP distraction issue to get all the low-information, religious, fly-over states votes. It was the political function of the abortion debate to pander to voters. The GOP never intended that a constitutional right would be continually under fire, beaten down and weathered away. It bit them in the ass, will lose them seats in Congress and they still don't even know how to distance themselves from it, because they won't grow a backbone and disavow this bullshiat.

Ahhhh, but in about 15 years or so, if they're successful a new right-wing talking point will be born... all of those unwanted kids will form a new criminal class so that someone has to get "tough" on crime.

There's a pretty strong causative case to me made that the huge dip in crime about 15 or so years after Roe vs Wade might have more than a little something to do with the fact that people born into socio-economic conditions likely to lead people to violent crime weren't born in as great numbers as prior to Roe.

padraig:Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

the_geek:The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.

Major members of one of the two dominant political parties in one of the most powerful countries on earth have made this part of not only their political party platform, but daily views and methods of governance, as evidenced by at least 2 other quotes of your post in this thread.

The thing is, it is a key element of the GOP platform that even they no is so repulsive that the vast majority despises them about it.......yet they keep farking the dog and won't remove it as one of their primary legislative goals.

When you are so vile that you can't admit it to yourself....you must be a conservative Republican.

Mercutio74:padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

But who created evil in the first place? If everything stems from God, then he's responsible for creating evil. If he didn't like evil, he could have simply made us without the mental capacity to do evil acts.

This is called the Problem of Evil, a well-discussed question in philosophy. The idea is that God cannot be, by simple observation, all omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

The gist of it goes like this:

Evil exists. Therefore:

She can stop evil, wants to stop evil, but can't see all evil (not omnisciencient)She can see all evil, wants to stop evil, but doesn't have the power to stop all evil. (not omnipotent)She can both see and stop whatever evil she wants, but chooses not to. (not benevolent)

The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan". But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, if 6m jews dying during WWII were evil, but can be exused because it was gods plan to teach humanity a lesson (say, about tolerance and genocide), then wouldn't 5.9 million have done the trick? 5.8?

If so, does this mean that god doesn't exist, is a dick, or just doesn't give a shiat? Those appear to be the remaining choices.

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable-what then?

Without Mourdock, the chance of Republicans reaching 50 Senate seats is nigh-nonexistant. The funny thing is that Republicans would have a lock on this seat if they didn't decide to primary Dick Lugar. Nope; Lugar had the audacity to suggest that making sure that we were able to continue to keep Russia's nuclear capabilities under control and prevent proliferation of nuclear materials to outside groups was more important than giving Obama a foreign policy victory (that Obama isn't even running on.)

You were so pissed you didn't get to accuse the president of letting our ability to monitor the Ruskies this election and that Lugar publicly shamed Jon Kyl (for negotiating an agreement with the President and then still attempting to vote the bill down after Obama gave Kyl the funding he said was required to get his support) that you decided to throw away a safe Senate seat to teach him a lesson.

Ilmarinen:padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

Where in the Bible can I find this?

I think the general idea is the piggy back it on to the idea that eating a specific kind of fruit gives you knowledge of good an evil.

unyon:The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan". But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, if 6m jews dying during WWII were evil, but can be exused because it was gods plan to teach humanity a lesson (say, about tolerance and genocide), then wouldn't 5.9 million have done the trick? 5.8?

In that case, one would have to assume that humanity gaining an understanding of reproductive processes and therefore our contraception / abortion knowledge and abilities must be part of God's Plantm for us too.

Republicans desperately need this Senate seat. Fox will do anything they can to make sure a republican wins. Even though the Democrat running is also very prolife and pretty conservitive, people will vote for Mourdock just because there is an R by his name. Im doing my best to spread the word that Mourdocks scum, but I live n a very red area of Indiana (southern).